EN BANC

[G.R. No. 115903. August 4, 1997]

ROBERTO CORDENILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY (Office of the President), and JOSE
BOLIVAR, respondents.

DECISION
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

The nullification of two (2) Resolution promulgated by the Office of the President
dated May 7, 1993[1] and June 9, 1994,[2] respectively, is sought by this petition, for the
resolution ordered the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources to process the fishpond lease application filed by private respondent
Jose Bolivar covering a fishpond area of twenty (20) hectares, situated at Barrio Malag-
it, Pontevedra, Capiz.
The following antecedent facts and proceedings are all undisputed:

1. Private respondent Jose Bolivar was granted by the Bureau of Forestry, now Bureau
of Forest Development, on September 17, 1963, Nipa-Bacauan (NB) Permit No. 1897,
covering 16.0 hectares in Pontevedra, Capiz, while [one] Julio de Jesus was issued by
the defunct Philippine Fisheries Commission, now Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) Fishpond Permit No. 5423 on June 21, 1965, covering 35.0
hectares likewise located at Pontevedra, Capiz.

2. On August 13, 1963, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed with the Bureau of Lands,
now Lands Management Bureau, a Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) over
about 134.0 hectares in the same locality, which area included the areas under private
respondent Jose Bolivars NB Permit and Julio de Jesus fishpond
permit. Simultaneously, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo entered and occupied the area
he applied for and, subsequently, constructed a fishpond on a ten (10)- hectare portion
thereof. This ten (10)-hectare portion was later on found to be within the area under
private respondent Jose Bolivars NB Permit.

3. Both private respondents Jose Bolivar and Julio de Jesus filed protests against the
MSA of petitioner Roberto Cordenillo. The protests were investigated and heard by
the District Land Officer and District Forester of Roxas City and also by the
Committee on Investigations of the then Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (DANR). After the investigation and ocular inspection, said committee
submitted its report on October 15, 1973, containing, among others, the following
observation:

1. That the area covered by the Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897 of Jose Bolivar and
the area covered by Fp.[No.] 5423 of Julio de Jesus are embraced and covered by the
Miscellaneous lease application of Roberto Cordenillo.

2. That Roberto Cordenillo constructed a fishpond of approximately 10.0 hectares

which is now fully developed and productive situated inside the Nipa-Bacauan permit
of Jose Bolivar.

3. That Jose Bolivar and Julio de Jesus have updated their rentals. The Nipa-Bacauan
permit of Jose Bolivar issued on September 17, 1963 to expire June 30, 1964 was,
however, first extended on September 23, 1969; the Fp. No. 5423 of Julio de Jesus
issued on June 21, 1965 was first extended on March 18, 1968.

4. There is no visible improvement in the area claimed by Julio de Jesus.

5. On September 17, 1963 the Bureau of Forestry issued a Nipa-Bacauan permit to

Jose Bolivar but on November 6, 1964 it rejected the Nipa-Bacauan application of
Roberto Cordenillo for lack of jurisdiction over the area.

6. That Roberto Cordenillo applied for a miscellaneous lease application with the
Bureau of Lands and later also a N.B. permit with the Bureau of Forestry. When his
application for N.B. permit with the Bureau of Forestry was rejected for lack of
jurisdiction, he pursued his miscellaneous lease application with the Bureau of Lands.

xxx

4. Accordingly, then Undersecretary of DANR, Jose D. Drilon, Jr., after appropriate

proceedings, issued an Order dated January 28, 1974, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897 issued in favor of Jose Bolivar covering
approximately sixteen hectares be, as hereby it is, CANCELLED;

2. The Miscellaneous Lease Application of Roberto Cordenillo covering

approximately 134 hectares be, as hereby it is, REJECTED.
3. Fishpond Permit No. 5423 issued in favor of Julio de Jesus be, as hereby it is,
CANCELLED;

4. Roberto Cordenillo SECURE a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of

Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed
as shown on the attached sketch;

5. The rest of the area applied by Roberto Cordenillo covered by his miscellaneous
lease application which is suitable for fishpond purposes be RELEASED in favor of
the Bureau of Fisheries for Disposition; and

6. Jose Bolivar be given PREFERENCE to apply with the Bureau of Fisheries for the
adjoining area suitable for fishpond purposes covering an area of twenty (20) hectares.

The Bureau of Forest Development is hereby ADMONISHED for having renewed the
Nipa-Bacauan Permit of Jose Bolivar even after it had previously declared itself as
having no jurisdiction over the area in question, which area is a part of the Tinagong
Dagat Bay. The same Office is enjoined to exercise more caution and due diligence in
acting on similar cases in the future to avoid damage or prejudice to innocent parties
affected by such action, in this case, Mr. Bolivar. To repair the damage Mr. Bolivar
may have suffered from the erroneous action of that Bureau, it is hereby reinterated
that special preference be given by the Office and other agencies of this Department
concerned in securing for him a similar permit over any adjoining or neighboring area.

xxx

5. Not satisfied, private respondent Jose Bolivar sought a reconsideration of the

above-mentioned order by filing the requisite motion and memorandum, dated
February 25 and March 21, 1974, respectively. On the basis thereof, the then Minister
of Natural Resources Jose Leido, Jr., issued an Order dated March 31, 1980,
modifying the aforesaid Order dated January 28, 1974 of Undersecretary Jose D.
Drilon, Jr., the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Order of the then Undersecretary of Agriculture and

Natural Resources, dated January 28, 1974, is hereby modified in the sense that
Fishpond Permit No. 5423 in the name of Julio de Jesus and the miscellaneous sales
application of Roberto Cordenillo shall remain cancelled and rejected, respectively;
that Roberto Cordenillo illegally occupied and developed a portion of the area covered
by Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897 of Jose Bolivar and, accordingly, Roberto
Cordenillo shall vacate said area occupied and all improvements introduced and found
therein are forfeited in favor of the government and that Jose Bolivar is given
preference over the area covered by his Nipa-Bacauan Permit No. 1897.
This Order shall be immediately executory.

xxx
xxx

6. Petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed a motion for reconsideration of the

aforementioned Order dated March 31, 1980 of Minister Jose Leido, Jr., and the same
motion was denied on September 4, 1980.

7. Accordingly, on September 25, 1980, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo appealed to the

Office of the President the aforementioned Order dated March 31, 1980 of Minister
Jose Leido, Jr.

8. On October 29, 1981, the Office of the President, through then Acting Presidential
Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, THE Order of the Minister of Natural Resources dated March 31,
1980 is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, the Order of then Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose D. Drilon (sic), dated January 28, 1974,
directing, inter alia that Roberto Cordenillo secure a fishpond lease agreement from
the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectare (sic)
which he has developed, is hereby reinstated.

xxx
xxx

9. On november 19, 1981, private respondent JOSE bolivar moved to reconsider the
aforementioned Decision dated October 29, 1981. In a Resolution dated March 19,
1982, the Office of the President resolved to dismiss private respondent Jose Bolivars
motion for reconsideration and declared subject Decision dated October 29, 1981 as
final.

10. Pursuant to the above-mentioned Resolution dated March 19, 1982 of the Office
of the President, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo filed his Fishpond Application over an
area of approximately ten (10) hectares on October 2, 1985, while private respondent
Jose Bolivar filed the Fishpond Application covering the adjoining area of twenty (20)
hectares on August 31, 1985.

11. Subsequently, or on October 8, 1985, petitioner Roberto Cordenillo sought

clarification from the Office of the President on the correct or proper interpretation of
its Decision dated October 29, 1981, specifically as to wether said Decision reinstated
the whole dispositive portion of the Order of then Undersecretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources Jose D. Drilon, Jr. dated January 28, 1974, or only that part thereof,
directing petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease agreement from the
Bureau of Fisheries covering the area approximately ten (10) hectares developed by
him as stated in the subject Decision.

12. In reply, the Office of the President informed petitioner Roberto Cordenillo in its
letter of April 2, 1986, that x x x the Decision of this Office in O.P. Case No. 1836
dated October 29, 1985 (sic), has the effect of reinstating the Order of then
Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose Drilon (sic), dated January
28, 1974, only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease
agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10)
hectares which he has developed.

13. Meanwhile, it appearing that the BFAR has not acted upon his fishpond
application for the twenty (20)-hectare area mentioned in the Drilon Order dated
January 28, 1974, which was reinstated in the O.P. Decision of October 29, 1981, and
considering further that a portion thereof still remains in the possession of petitioner
Roberto Cordenillo, private respondent Jose Bolivar filed with the Office of the
President the instant Ex-PARTE MOTION (For Issuance of the Writ of
Implementation) on March 17, 1988, praying for the issuance of an Order directing
BFAR and the Department of Agriculture to issue to him (private respondent Jose
Bolivar) a twenty-five (25)-year fishpond lease agreement over an area of twenty (20)
hectares adjoining the ten (10) hectares shown in the sketch to the Drilon Order of
January 28,1974, and the Capiz P.C. Provincial Command to clear the aforesaid area
of occupants and to deliver the physical possession thereof to private respondent Jose
Bolivar.

14. In a SUPPLEMENTAL TO EX-PARTE MOTION (for the Issuance of an Order

of Implementation), dated June 2, 1988, private respondent Jose Bolivar, through
counsel, adverted to the Memorandum of Fisheries Regional Director Matias A.
Guieb dated October 29, 1985, finding petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to have acted in
bad faith when he occupied the entire area of 47.9852 hectares covered by his rejected
Fishpond Permit Application No. 36939 without the benefit of a lease agreement and
with full knowledge of the pending controversy over the said area before the DANR.
Additionally, private respondent Jose Bolivar prayed for a declaration that the entire
decretal portion of the Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974, was reinstated or revived
by the O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981. [3]

It is significant to point out at this juncture that prior to private respondent Bolivars
aforementioned twin Motions dated March 17, 1988 and June 2, 1988 praying for the
issuance of a fishpond lease agreement covering the twenty (20) hectares adjoining
petitioner Cordenillos ten (10) hectares of fishpond, and for a categorical declaration
that the entire decretal portion of Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974, was reinstated
or revived by the Decision dated October 29, 1981 as rendered by Acting Presidential
Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr. of the Office of the President, the Secretary
and the Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture had already earlier made
official issuances to the effect that the decretal portion of the Drilon Order dated January
28,1974 was and should be deemed, reinstated or revived by the Venus Decision dated
October 29, 1981.
In fact, these Department of Agriculture issuances, namely, two (2) Memoranda
dated October 1, 1986 and February 28, 1989, respectively, issued by the Regional
Director and a 4thIndorsement dated July 12, 1988 issued by the Secretary, both of said
department, were the subject of a Petition for Injunction dated May 4, 1989 filed by
petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. [4] In that petition, the trial court
was asked to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture, the Regional Director, and the
Provincial Agricultural Officer of Capiz from implementing the aforesaid Memoranda and
4th Indorsement on the ground that the approval by respondent Secretary of the
application for issuance of a fishpond lease agreement in favor of the private
respondent [covering] the subject 20-hectare fishpond would enable private respondent
to appropriate the subject 20-hectare fishpond, thus depriving petitioner of the [land]
and its improvements thereon without due process of law and would therefore unjustly
enrich the private respondent at the expense of another.[5]
The trial court denied the Petition for Injunction in an Order dated June 8, 1989.
Aggrieved by said Order of denial, petitioner filed with this court a Petition for
Certiorari[6] docketed as G.R. No. 88814 seeking the nullification and setting aside of
said Order of denial and the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of
preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary of Agriculture, the Regional Director and
the Provincial Agricultural Officer of Capiz, all of the Department of Agriculture, from
implementing or in any way enforcing the Venus Decision dated October 29, 1981
which, in turn, reinstated and/or revived the entire decretal portion of the Drilon Order
dated January 28, 1974.
In a Resolution dated July 19, 1989,[7] we resolved to refer G.R. No. 88814 to the
Court of Appeals which has concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
petition. Thus, subsequently, the same petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
18397.
On August 14, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed said petition, ruling as it did
that the therein assailed issuances rendered by the various officials of the Department
of Agriculture:
xxx

[do] not in any way show that the Bureau of Fisheries had intended to dispossess
[petitioner] Cordenillo of the ten-hectare portion which he had already allegedly
cultivated. The Memorandum Order concerned merely advised Bolivar to apply for
the adjoining area suitable for fishpond purposes covering twenty (20) hectares, and
for Cordenillo to file and submit all the requirements for 25-year lease agreement over
the area of 11.0916 hectares x x x and likewise, to apply over the area of 27.9852
hectares if he so desire (sic) which was declared vacant and open to any qualified
applicants who shall also pay the appraised value of improvements found therein, if
ther is any.

There is nothing yet, as of this point in time, to persuade this Court to believe that the
ten-hectare fishpond which Cordenillo has developed, is to be awarded by the Bureau
of Fisheries to Bolivar. Until such time that the identities of the areas respectively
applied for by Cordenillo and Bolivar shall have been delineated by the Bureau of
Fisheries, it would be premature for petitioner to come to court to seek for injunctive
relief. x x x.

xxx[8]
In the light of the extent of trouble, as shown above, to which petitioner Cordenillo
went in order to challenge and invalidate any and all official government declarations as
to the efficacy of the Drilon Order dated January 28, 1974 which sanctioned and even
favorably endorsed the issuance of a fishpond lease in favor of private respondent
Bolivar over twenty (20) hectares of land adjoining the ten (10) hectares adjudicated to
petitioner under the same Drilon Order, petitioner Cordenillo, ever true to form, did not
lose time in seeking the judicial nullification of the twin Resolutions issued by the Office
of the President dated May 7, 1993 and June 9, 1994, respectively, which granted
private respondents EX-PARTE MOTION (for Issuance of the Writ of Implementation)
and ordered the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources to forthwith process and give due course to the fishpond lease application
filed by Jose Bolivar covering twenty (20) hectares s situated at Barrio Malag-it,
Pontevedra, Capiz.[9]
The Office of the President, through Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio T.
Carpio, resolved the aforesaid Ex-Parte Motion of private respondent Bolivar, in this
wise:

After a close and perceptive study, this Office is persuaded to uphold x x x x Bolivars
view that the Decision of this Office dated October29, 1981 [i.e., the Venus Decision]
reinstated the entire dispositive portion of the Drilon [sic] order of January 28, 1974,
not just that portion thereof (par. 4) advising Cordenillo to secure a fishpond lease
agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10)
hectares he has developed. It is noteworthy that, long before the rendition by this
Office on April 2, 1986 of the clarificatory opinion requested by Cordenillo on the
effect of its Decision on the Drilon [sic] order, Fisheries Regional Director Matias A.
Guieb had shared the view of Bolivars counsel that what was reinstated by the O.P.
Decision of October 29, 1981, was the entire portion of the Drillon [sic] order. Thus,
in his memorandum for the BFAR Director, dated August 5, 1985, Director Guieb
stated in part:

This Office share[s] the view of the Counsel of Jose Bolivar that what was reinstated
was the Order dated January 28, 1974, not a portion thereof.

This view is also stated in a Memorandum dated 1983-12-09 of the Director of

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources quoted hereunder:

Take note that in an Order dated January 28,1974 of the then Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources involving an area located in Pontevedra, Capiz,
applicant Roberto Cordenillo was awarded an area of 10.0 hectares and a certain Jose
Bolivar was given preference to apply with this Office for the adjoining area of 20.0
hectares. This Order was affirmed in an Order issued by the Office of the President
dated October 28, 1981. x x x

The Director of Lands likewise, in his letter dated May 21, 1985 to the Director of
Fisheries, stated:

In reply, please be informed that this Office [poses] no objection to the disposition of
the land aforesaid through lease for fishpond purposes considering the fact that the
miscellaneous lease application of Roberto Cordenillo therefor has already been
rejected by the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in Order dated
January 28, 1974 which was reiterated by Malacaang in its resolution dated March 19,
1982 after several incidents. x x x

From the foregoing , it could be deduced and safely conclude[d] that the Decision of
the Office of the President dated October 28, 1981 had set aside the Order of the
Minister of Natural Resources dated March 31, 1980 in its entirety and reinstated fully
the order of the Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources dated January
28, 1974.

Moreover, as may be immediately discerned from the body of O.P. Decision dated
October 29, 1981 [i.e., the Venus Decision], what was resolved therein was solely the
issue of who between the contending parties is entitled to the award of the 10-hectare
portion of the subject fishpond area, nothing more or less. This is as it should be,
because that was the lone and only issue raised by Cordenillo in his appeal from the
MNR Order of March 31, 1980. If said Decision intended to revive only that
particular potion of the Drillon [sic] order relative to the award of the 10 hectares, it
should have categorically and emphatically ruled on the right, or rather the
disqualification, of Bolivar to acquire the 20 hectares decreed in the Drillon [sic]
order. Strangely enough though, said Decision was conspicuously silent on this point.
Withal, it is hard to believe that such an important matter, which the subject Decision
had discarded and cast into oblivion, despite the precise and categoric[al] language of
the dispositive portion of the Drillon [sic] order, would have been left in the said
Decision to mere implication. Having opted not to discuss or mention even in passing
the issue of Bolivars preferential right to apply for the 20-hectare area, the Decision in
question must be taken, in effect, to have affirmed the same and those embodied in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decretal portion of the Drillon [sic] order.
Consequently, the matter of Bolivars right to the award of the 20 hectares not having
been controverted or traversed in the subject Decision, the same must be deemed to
have been definitively settled or set to rest, along with the other issues discussed in the
dispositive portion of the Drillon [sic] order. This must be so, for the Decision of this
Office of October 29, 1981, retroacts to the date of the Drillon [sic] order of January
28, 1974. And, having acquired the character of finality as of March 19, 1982, said
Decision had, for all legal intents and purposes, concluded the legality, among others,
of the conditional award to Bolivar of the 20 hectares and precludes the subsequent
determination of the very same issue.

xxx

It may be apropos to mention that Cordenillo did not appeal the Drillon [sic] order.
Hence, in so far as he is concerned, said order had preclusive effect, not only [as to]
that portion giving him preferential right to apply by lease for the 10-hectare fishpond
area, but the entirety thereof.

This Office also notes that, in his Appeal Memorandum filed with this Office, dated
September 23, 1980, Cordenillo prayed for the reinstatement of the entire Drillon [sic]
order of January 28, 1974. Likewise, in his subsequent Memorandum dated April 20,
1981, Cordenillo asked this Office to uphold the Drillon [sic] order, without
qualification or condition whatsoever. Thus, there was no need for Cordenillo to seek
clarification on the effect of the October 29, 1981 Decision of this Office on the
Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974. For its part, this Office cannot be faulted for
rendering the aforementioned interpretative ruling, considering that the only issue
raised before it at that time was who between Bolivar and Cordenillo is entitled to the
10 hectares in question.

For this Office to adhere to its previous interpretation that its Decision of October 29,
1981 did not revive the entire Drillon [sic] order of January 28, 1974, would enable
Cordenillo to apply not only for the 20 hectares awarded to Bolivar but also the rest of
the 134 hectares covered by his rejected miscellaneous sales application. This, to say
the least, is in accord neither with justice nor equity which this Office will not
countenance.
Upon the foregoing premises, this Office finds, and so holds, that its Decision of
October 29, 1981, reinstated and revived the entire dispositive portion of the order of
then DANR Secretary Jose D. Drillon [sic] dated January 28, 1974, in DANR Case
No. 3909. [10]

On May 29, 1993, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforequoted
Resolution. Said Motion was anchored on the following grounds: (1) that the decision
rendered by the Office of the President dated April 2, 1986 whereby said office clarified
that the Drilon Order was reinstated only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to
secure a fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of
approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed, had already become final and
executory, thus rendering null and void for being an issuance tainted with grave abuse
of discretion, the aforequoted Resolution dated May 7, 1993, which in effect reverses
aforesaid April 2, 1986 decision; (2) that the aforequoted Resolution was issued in
violation of petitioners right to due process; and (3) that the aforequoted Resolution was
not supported by the true facts and the laws and jurisprudence of the case.
In the Resolution dated June 9, 1994, the Office of the President denied petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration in this manner:

Anent the first ground, we are not persuaded by movants argument that the Resolution
of this Office, dated May 7, 1993, is null and void for lack of jurisdiction and a grave
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, allegedly because its clarificatory
Order/Decision, of April 2, 1986 had already become final and executory. Being
merely interpretative of the main Decision in O.P. Case No. 1863, said clarificatory
Order/Decision, assuming the same to have acquired the character of finality, cannot
affect, much less divest x x x Bolivar of his preferential right acquired under the
Drillon [sic] Order of January 28,1974, which was revived in its entirety by O.P.
Decision dated October 29, 1981, to apply for the adjoining area suitable for fishpond
purposes covering twenty (20) hectares. This is only as it should be, considering that
movant did not appeal the Drillon [sic] order directing, among others, that he secure
from the then Bureau of Fisheries a fishpond lease agreement over the 10-hectare
fishpond area developed by him.

Moreover, Bolivars right to apply for the adjoining area of twenty (20) hectares
suitable for fishpond purposes had long become vested with the finality of our
Decision of October 29, 1981 on March 19, 1982, which retroacts to the date of the
Drillon [sic] order dated January 28,1974. Indeed, to sustain movants argument would
mean that this miscellaneous lease application over the 134 hectares that was already
rejected in the Drillon [sic] order remains valid and could be pursued by him.
Certainly, this is far removed from the intention of this Office when it rendered its
October 29, 1981 Decision wherein the only issue raised by movant and resolved
therein was his right to lease the 10-hectare area.
Concerning the second ground, this Office finds itself hard put to concede validity to
movants contention that he was denied due process because he was not afforded
opportunity to be heard vis--vis [private respondents] x x x EX-PARTE MOTION
(For Issuance of the Writ of Implementation), in view of the instant motion interposed
by movant seeking reconsideration of the questioned Resolution. As held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Maglasang vs. Ople x x x:

x x x As far back as 1935, it has already been settled doctrine that a plea of denial of
procedural due process does not lie where a defect consisting of an absence of notice
of hearing was thereafter cured by the alleged aggrieved party having had the
opportunity to be heard on a motion for reconsideration. What the law prohibits is not
the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lack of
opportunity to be heard. There is then no occasion to impute deprivation of property
without due process where the adverse party was heard on a motion for
reconsideration constituting as it does sufficient opportunity for him to inform the
Tribunal concerned of his side of the controversy. x x x [W]hat due process
contemplates is freedom from arbitrariness and what it requires is fairness or justice,
the substance rather than the form being paramount, the conclusion being that the
hearing on a motion for reconsideration meets the strict requirement of the process.

Lastly, for obvious lack of merit, this Office does not deem it necessary to pass upon
the third ground invoked by movant, said Resolution of May 7, 1993 being decidedly
congruent with the factual situation and in full accord with settled jurisprudence and
legal principles.
[11]

Undaunted, petitioner simply refuses to concede the futility of his baseless

postulations; hence, the instant petition, which, needless to say, is totally devoid of
merit.
Stripped of non-essentials, petitioner Cordenillos singular and all-consuming cause
is to, at all costs, keep possession of the twenty-hectare fishpond over which private
respondent Bolivar was granted lease preference under the January 28, 1974 Drilon
Order and which fishpond land petitioner has absolutely no right to claim, much less,
occupy.
Petitioner does not deny that said 20-hectares area is included in the 47.9852
hectares covered by the petitioner s x x x [miscellaneous sales] application and he has
been in actual continuous possession thereof sinse [sic] 1963 during which he
developed it into a productive fishpond.[12] The records clearly show, however, that the
overlapping of fishpond area is to be blamed on petitioner himself, having included in
his application dated August 13, 1963 the area already subject of private respondent
Bolivars Nipa-Bacauan Permit granted him by the Bureau of Forest Development on
September 17, 1963. When petitioner thus occupied said area and built improvements
thereon, he did so with full knowledge of private respondent Bolivars existing Nipa-
Bacauan Permit covering the same area and the protest filed by the latter against the
Miscellaneous Sales Application of petitioner.
That protest filed by private respondent Bolivar was resolved with the issuance of
the so-called Drilon Order dated January 28,1974. In that order, Jose D. Drilon, Jr., the
then Undersecretary of the then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(DANR), categorically rejected and correspondingly denied, petitioners Miscellaneous
Sales Application. The only concession granted petitioner under said order was a
fishpond lease agreement over some ten (10) hectares developed by petitioner into
viable fishponds, which 10-hectare area was definitely identified in a sketch annexed to
the Drilon Order. Apparently, petitioner was granted such 10-hectare area in recognition
of his subsisting occupation thereof and the improvements thereon built by
petitioner. For his part, private respondent Bolivar was unequivocally declared a
preferred and first priority lease applicant for the 20-hectare area adjoining petitioners
ten (10) hectares.
Private respondent Bolivar, at first, did not agree with the Drilon Order. Thus, he
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said order. Acting on said motion, the then Minister
of Natural Resources Jose Leido, Jr. issued an Order additionally declaring petitioner
Cordenillo to have illegally occupied and developed a portion of the area covered by the
Nipa-Bacauan Permit of private respondent Bolivar.
Finding such declaration extremely prejudicial to his interests, considering that he
had already invested a substantial amount of money in the form of improvements on a
portion of the area covered by private respondent Bolivars Nipa-Bacauan Permit,
petitioner Cordenillo appealed to the Office of the President.
The Office of the President, through then Acting Presidential Executive Assistant
Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., rendered a decision setting aside the Leido Order and reinstating
the Drilon Order. While the reinstatement of the Drilon Order was made in general,
sweeping terms, Venus particularly directed that Roberto Cordenillo secure a fishpond
lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten
(10) hectare [sic] which he has developed.
In effect, Venus Order deleted the Leido declaration that petitioner Cordenillo
illegally occupied a portion of the area covered by private respondent Bolivars Nipa-
Bacauan Permit. Thus, Bolivar moved for the reconsideration of the Venus Order. Said
motion, however, was dismissed, and the Venus Order dated October 29, 1981, which
reinstated the Drilon Order, was declared final in a Resolution dated March 19, 1982.
With such a declaration of finality of the Venus Order reinstating the Drilon Order,
this dispute between petitioner Cordenillo and private respondent Bolivar involving
overlapping fishpond area, beginning with Cordenillos intrusion in September, 1963, into
a portion of the area covered by Bolivars Nipa-Bacauan Permit, should have long ended
in the filing by Cordenillo and Bolivar of their respective fishpond lease applications, the
former, for the ten (10) hectares granted him under the Drilon Order, and the latter, for
the twenty (20) hectares granted him, with preference, under the same order. In fact, in
1985, both Cordenillo and Bolivar did file their respective fishpond lease applications in
accordance with area specifications under the Drilon Order.
 The events thereafter, however, reveal the singular, real motivation of petitioner
Cordenillo for challenging the Drilon Order: petitioner had, in fact, occupied and built
improvements on, not only a portion of the area formerly covered by private respondent
Bolivars Nipa-Bancauan Permit but also the twenty (20) hectares adjoining the ten (10)
hectares granted him under the Drilon Order. In other words, petitioner Cordenillo
wanted nothing less and nothing more than that portion of the Drilon Order granting him
the ten (10) hectares of fishpond land already occupied by him, i.e., Cordenillo had all
the while been consumingly obsessed with finding a way of deleting that portion of the
Drilon Order granting Bolivar the adjoining twenty (20) hectares already also occupied
by Cordenillo.
And so when the Venus Order was issued generally reinstating the Drilon Order but
only specifically and explicitly directing the issuance of a lease agreement over the said
ten (10) hectares in favor of Cordenillo and leaving out any mention of the preferential
lease agreement over the adjoining twenty (20) hectares in favor of Bolivar, petitioner
Cordenillo went to town with the boisterous, imperious, and myopic conclusion that the
Venus Order reinstated the Drilon Order only insofar as the specific and explicit grant of
lease to Cordenillo is concerned.
Petitioner Cordenillos wake up call has come, and it is this: Cordenillo is trifling with
the processes of this governments administrative offices with his utterly baseless, not to
mention, selfish, cause.
First. We rule, in no uncertain terms, that the Venus Order reinstated, in whole, the
Drilon Order. In the first place, there is simply nothing in the Venus Order that supports
petitioners self-serving conclusion that said order only revived the grant to him of the
ten(10) hectares already known to have earlier occupied by him. The dispositive portion
of the Venus Order reads:

WHEREFORE, THE Order of the Minister of Natural Resources dated March 31,
1980 is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof, the Order of then Undersecretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose D. Drillon (sic), dated January 28, 1974,
directing, inter alia that Roberto Cordenillo secure a fishpond lease agreement from
the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of approximately ten (10) hectare (sic)
which he has developed is hereby reinstated.

SO ORDERED. [emphasis ours]

[13]

On its face, the aforequoted dispositive portion of the Venus Order reinstated the Drilon
Order directing, inter alia or among others, the grant to petitioner of the ten (10)
hectares already developed by him into fishponds. Undoubtedly, the Venus Order
acknowledged the existence of the other directives contained in the Drilon Order by
using the term, inter alia. Non-mention thereof in the Venus Order, thus, cannot be
deemed abrogation thereof, since such other directives were clearly part of the context
within which the Drilon Order was undertaken.
 In the second place, the primary issue passed upon in the Venus Order was the
question of who has the better right to the disputed 10-hectare fishpond area.[14] It is
helpful to recall that petitioner had included in his Miscellaneous Sales Application a
portion of the area covered by private respondent Bolivars Nipa-Bacauan Permit. This is
the disputed 10-hectare fishpond area referred to in the Venus Order. Having identified
the issue as such, then Acting Presidential Executive Assistant Venus perceived his
recourse to be, to choose who between Cordenillo and Bolivar was entitled to the
disputed 10-hectare fishpond area. Apparently, then Acting Presidential Executive
Assistant Venus was impressed with Cordenillos asseverations of good faith in including
said area in his application and decided to categorically declare Cordenillo the good
faith occupant of the disputed area over which, he should be given preferential right to
lease. Since the Drilon Order adjudicated said area to petitioner Cordenillo, then Acting
Presidential Executive Assistant Venus opted to simply reinstate the entire Drilon Order
and to quote the pert thereof which was specially responsive and pertinent to, the sole
issue of who, between Cordenillo and Bolivar, had better right to said disputed fishpond
area. This ten-hectare fishpond area, however, is separate and distinct from the twenty-
hectare area adjoining the same which was adjudicated to private respondent Bolivar as
preferential lease applicant thereof under the Drilon Order. There is absolutely nothing
in the Venus Order that challenged, negated, abrogated, or even modified the status of
Bolivar as preferential lease applicant respecting the 20 hectares adjoining Cordenillos
10-hectare fishpond area. We thus, quote, with approval, the following postulations of
the Solicitor General:

The Decision of the Office of the President (O.P.) dated October 29, 1981 reinstated
the entire dispositive portion of the Drilon Order of January 28, 1974, not just that
portion thereof (paragraph 4) advising petitioner Roberto Cordenillo to secure a
fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of
approximately ten(10) hectares he has developed. It may be immediately discerned
from the O.P. Decision dated October 29, 1981, that what was resolved therein was
solely the issue of who between the contending parties is entitled to the award of the
ten (10)-hectare portion of subject fishpond area, nothing more or less. This is as it
should be, because that was the lone and only issue raised by petitioner Roberto
Cordenillo in his appeal from the MNR Order of March 31, 1980. If said Decision
intended to revive only that particular portion of the Drilon Order of January 28, 1974
relative to the award of the ten (10) hectares, it should have categorically and
emphatically ruled on the right, or rather, the disqualification, of private respondent
Jose Bolivar to acquire the twenty (20) hectares decreed in the Drilon Order x x x.
Strangely enough though, said Decision was conspicuously silent on this point. x x x
Having opted not to discuss or mention even in passing the issue of private respondent
Jose Bolivars preferential right to apply for the twenty (20) hectares area, the Decision
in question must be taken, in effect, to have affirmed the same and those embodied in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the decretal portion of the Drilon Order. Consequently, the
matter of private respondent Jose Bolivars right to award of twenty (20) hectares not
having been controverted or traversed in the subject Decision, the same must be
deemed to have been definitively settled or set to rest, along with the other issues
discussed in the dispositive potion of the Drilon Order. This must be so, for the O.P.
Decision of October 29, 1981, retroacts to the date of the Drilon Order of January 28,
1974. And having acquired the character of finality as of March 19, 1982, said
Decision had, for all legal intents and purposes, concluded the legality, among others,
of the conditional award to private respondent Jose Bolivar of the twenty (20) hectares
and precluded the subsequent determination of the very same issue.

xxx

It may be apropos to mention that petitioner Roberto Cordenillo did not appeal the
Drilon Order x x x. Hence, insofar as he is concerned, said order had preclusive effect,
not only on that portion giving him preferential right to apply by lease for the ten (10)-
hectare fishpond area, but the entirety thereof.

It should be noted that in his Appeal Memorandum filed with the Office of the
President x x x [when he appealed from the Leido Order], petitioner Roberto
Cordenillo prayed for the reinstatement of the Drilon Order x x x. Likewise, in his
subsequent Memorandum x x x petitioner Roberto Cordenillo asked the Office of the
President to uphold the Drilon Order x x x without qualification whatsoever. x x x [15]

Second. Petitioner also argues that the herein assailed issuances of the Office of
the President are null and void for having been promulgated in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the April 2, 1986
Clarificatory Order also issued by the Office of the President, through then Deputy
Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., categorically declared the Drilon Order
to have been reinstated only insofar as it directed Roberto Cordenillo to secure a
fishpond lease agreement from the Bureau of Fisheries covering the area of
approximately ten (10) hectares which he has developed.[16]
We strongly disagree.
If there is anything that was issued in grave abuse of discretion, it is this April 2,
1986 Order. What is ironic, however, is that justification of his finding that the Drilon
Order was not reinstated in its entirety, then Deputy Executive Secretary Factoran cited
exactly the same reason that rightly supports the contrary conclusion: that the basic
appeal to [the Office of the President] tendered only the issue of superiority of right over
the disputed 10-hectare area.[17] Being patently null and void for having been issued in
total disregard of and as completely contrary to, the already final and executory Venus
Order reinstating the Drilon Order in its entirety, the April 2, 1986 Clarificatory Order of
the Executive Secretary Factoran is incapable of ripening into a final and executory
order as stubbornly claimed by petitioner.
Finally, petitioner pretends to be a victim of due process violation because he was
not afforded the opportunity to be heard vis--vis private respondent Bolivars EX-PARTE
MOTION (For Issuance of the Writ of Implementation). Suffice it to say that the mere
fact that petitioner assails two Resolution of the Office of the President, the one with the
later date of which was issued precisely upon petitioners filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution first issued on dated May 7, 1993, shows that
petitioner was in fact heard, for purposes of Administrative due process, when he filed
said Motion for Reconsideration. As such, any contention of denial of due process must
fail as the same was cured by the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration.[18]
All told, herein public respondent Executive Secretary did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the herein assailed twin Resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is HEREBY DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, and Francisco, JJ., took no part; related to the parties.

[1]
Promulgated by the Office of the President through Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Antonio T.
Carpio; Rollo, pp. 30-38.
[2]
Promulgated by the Office of the President through Senior Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A.
Quisumbing; Rollo, pp. 39-42.
[3]
Comment of the Solicitor General dated November 11, 1994, pp. 2-10; Rollo, pp. 103-111.
[4]
Branch 17, Sixth Judicial Region.
[5]
Petition dated June 23, 1989 docketed as G.R. No. 88814, p. 2; Rollo, p. 152.
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Rollo, p. 158.
[8]
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 14, 1989 in CA-G.R. SP No. 18397, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp.
160-161.
[9]
Resolution dated May 7, 1993, p. 9; Rollo, p. 38.
[10]
Id., pp. 6-9; Rollo, pp. 35-38.
[11]
Resolution dated June 9, 1994, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 40-42.
[12]
Petition for Certiorari dated June 23, 1989, p. 2; Rollo, p. 152.
[13]
Order issued by Acting Presidential Executive Assistant Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., p. 7; Rollo, p. 49.
[14]
Id., p. 4; Rollo, p. 46.
[15]
Comment of the Solicitor General dated November 11, 1994, pp. 13-16; Rollo, pp. 114-117.
[16]
Letter-Decision dated April 2, 1986, p. 4; Rollo, p. 66.
[17]
Id., p. 3; Rollo, p. 65.
[18]
Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 344 [1988]; Maglasang v. Ople, 63 SCRA 508 [1975].